Posted on 03/13/2007 12:35:30 PM PDT by truthfinder9
:-D
Well now, that is odd, I read back, and *I* can still see the posts by me to you specificallly about this.
Maybe your monitor has a smudge on it? A *big* smudge?
To repeat, just for you -- you observe with your eyes the moon's path thru the sky. Then we observe with our telescopes Earth and other planets path thru the sky.
This is observable evidence.
Then we do the math, and we notice that the equations work perfectly if we use the sun as the central gravitation pull that these bodies are moving around. We can even use these formulae to make predictions about where the bodies are going to be, and those predictions are borne out.
This evidence applies to any coordinate system you wish to use. The concept of 'the sun's mass as the central force holding the solar system together' is proven, by more empiracal evidence.
Six verses at the very end. Easily recovered by Westcott and Hort and confirmed by the patterns found by Panin. zit merely returns to the 'original text' claim that I had previously refuted.
What was it I alluded to with Heb 11:6? That the opportunity for unbelief *must* always be present. :-)
What you provided does not uniquely support heliocentrism and you would be completely dishonest to imply that they do.
Your arguments are completely based on geometry and Ernst Mach proved that the laws of geometry would be violated if there were any essential difference between a heliocentric and a geocentric model back in the 1800's.
Now, where was your unique evidence supporting only heliocentrism? Can't be geometric. Ernst Mach proved that.
!?
What do you think "heliocentric" means, exactly?
This comment is so wrong as to be non-sensical . . .
You ever use "Panin's Panic"?
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/panin.html
BTW, Westcott and Hort published in the 1880s. Their findings have never been used in any edition of the KJV.
Do you observe the motion of the planets and moon?
LOL! Indeed I misspelled Sidereal. Stupid mistake. Sigh.
And indeed we need to take that into account. I get paid mucho buckaroos to do what I do. (And I am very good at it)
Sidereal time is directly related to the Earth's rotation referenced to the "fixed" stars.
Mean Solar time is a noon-to-noon average referenced to the Sun.
However, when calculating the position of my birds, I use star sensors. Well guess what bucko; the stars shift as the Earth orbits the Sun. Something called parallax. If the Sun orbited the Earth, I would not have to take that into account. A sidereal day vs. mean solar is a result of our orbit and parallax is a direct result if the Earth orbiting the Sun. Capiche?
>>>Intelligent Design Scientists Will Showcase Evidence Challenging Evolution at Knoxville Conference.<<<
If life was created by "Intelligent" Design, then how do you explain liberals?
Best post of the thread!
So?
That is the way science is done. Theories are modified to become increasingly accurate.
In some cases, theories can't be modified to account for new data, and are replaced by new, and more accurate, theories.
Why do you expect that a theory has to be unchangeable, and why do you criticize science when it modifies theories to be more accurate?
This is a serious question, and I would like to understand your reasoning.
" I was particularly struck by the findings, one part of which was summarized in the abstract as follows:
"As a consequence, the claim that historical science is methodologically inferior to experimental science cannot be sustained."
The connection to creation/ID is that if historical science methodology is not inferior to experimental science, then the general "falsifiable" argument against ID does not apply.
OK, I see where you are coming from. You are trying to "wedge" creation/ID into a scientific framework. The problem is that you are ignoring the scientific method in doing so.
This started with creation "science." There was no science there, just an attempt to couch a religious belief in scientific terms.
When creation "science" was banned from the schools by the U.S. Supreme Court in the late 1980s, creationists needed to come up with another vehicle, and hence ID was hatched.
The problem is that ID really is an offshoot of creationism. The subterfuge is spelled out clearly in the Wedge Strategy. Further evidence: the book Of Pandas and People changed the term "creation/creationism" to "intelligent design" in subsequent iterations--trying to keep up with the changing scheme to convert creation "science" into the new study, "intelligent design." The problem is, they were sloppy, and left a clear paper trail.
By pretending that the "intelligent designer" is not the Christian deity, it was hoped that the judiciary would be fooled. The Dover decision showed that to be incorrect.
It seems to me that the subterfuge of trying to hide creation "science" under the new rubric of "intelligent design," in order to sneak it into the classrooms after the Supreme Court decision is nothing if not dishonest.
But here's another test. In the past I have posted a number of creation stories from around the world, and the vast majority of IDers take offense at the accuracy or truth of these stories--they generally say something like, "That's not the right creation story!" Or, they say, "There is no good documentation for that story; my creation story has better documentation!"
They believe that their creation story is better documented or in some way superior to the several thousand other such stories that have been found around the world. So its not just creation in general, or ID in specific that we are seeing here; it is the biblical version of creation, as seen in Genesis, that is the key belief. ID is just a ruse.
In actuality, most IDers don't really believe in some unnamed, unknown, designer. They believe the "designer" was the Christian deity precisely as specified in the bible. I think many so-called IDers are trying to dishonestly portray their actual beliefs as some form of science in an attempt to introduce the biblical version of creation into the public schools, and into science classes.
Here is one of the "other" creation stories. Do you think it has any validity? Or is it not "as well documented" as some other creation story?
In the beginning, Old Man Coyote stood alone with water surrounding him. Two ducks swam by, and Coyote asked if they had seen anyone else. The ducks said no but thought that something might exist under the water.Coyote asked if they would travel underwater for him and report on what they saw. The ducks did as they were asked, finding nothing. He asked again, and the ducks returned with a root. On the third try, they found mud and Coyote was happy. He told the ducks that they could build with it, and he began to shape and mold the mud into an island. He blew on it, and it expanded. He blew again, and it grew into the earth. The ducks said they did not like the earth's emptiness, so Coyote created grass and trees out of the roots that came from the water.
Coyote and the ducks loved the earth, but it was flat. They wanted rivers, valleys, mountains, and lakes. So it was done. Soon Coyote and the ducks made a perfect earth, but they grew lonely, with only the three of them to sit and enjoy the land. So Coyote molded dirt to form men and then more mud to create many types of male ducks. Soon, they realized that without women, the males could not have children. So with more dirt he made women and female ducks to populate the earth.
One day Old Man Coyote traveled upon the land and was surprised to find another Coyote. When asked where he came from, the younger brother, named Shirape, said he was unsure of his origin and only knew he existed. As the two traveled along, Shirape wanted Old Man Coyote to make other animals, for only ducks, humans, and the two Coyotes had been created. The elder Coyote agreed, and as he spoke the new animals' names, they were created. He said "Elk" and an elk appeared. He said "Bear" and a bear appeared. This is how it was until all animals were created.
Go to page 12 on this link and you will find a refutation of the work of Ivan Panin.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/2003/3.pdf
Or, I can paraphrase it for you:
You can find codes of this kind in any book, from the Constitution of Australia (one of the works used in the article) to The Lord of The Rings. Was JRR Tolkein as divinely inspired as the authors of the Bible?
Good response, and well earned I might add.
Ah, the evil conspiracy approach.
Sorry, but I'm not talking about wedging ID anywhere. I'm just saying that it's disingenuous to use falsification as the gold standard of science when it does not apply to the historical sciences.
Some of the Gospels appear to have evolved from an older version that no longer exists.
(Remember - this is how EVOLUTION is supposed to work)
I do not disagree that many translation spins have been created, but REPUTABLE modern translations ALWAYS try to use the OLDEST known documents as a basis for starting.
To imply that ALL the 'bibles' we have today are so messed up to be unusable is disingenuous to say the least.
Are YOU contending that an ancient manuscript does NOT contain "word" of God?
If the 9/11 terrorist had managed to blow up the building that contains the ORIGINAL Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, think of the heyday the Liberals would have in the future claiming...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.